MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046281308 · doi:10.1207/s1532706xid0501_4

Identity Processing Styles and Canadian Adolescents' Self-Reported Delinquency

2005· article· en· W2046281308 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gerald R. Adams, Brenda Munro, Gordon Munro, Maryanne Doherty-Poirer, Joy Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueIdentity · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityAlberta HealthUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsJuvenile delinquencyIdentity (music)PsychologyNormativeParallelsStyle (visual arts)Perspective (graphical)Developmental psychologySocial psychologyCriminologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on research in juvenile delinquency and crime, several parallels are observed with that of research using the concept of identity styles. The study of 1,450 adolescent boys and girls in the 7th through 12th grade was completed to discern if identity theory is useful in detecting self-reported delinquency behavior. Gender and age differences were expected; however, they were not observed to be of major consequences. Rather, a diffuse-avoidance identity style was associated with higher self-reported delinquent behaviors and a normative or social convention perspective associated with less self-reported delinquency. This discussion briefly explores the findings that support a general theory of crime and the potential contribution identity theory could have for the study of adolescent delinquency. Limitations of this study are briefly recognized.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIdentitySame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207